W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: Request for syntax simplification

From: Eric J. Miller <emiller@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:44:56 -0500
Message-Id: <365C5E37.4B7778CE@oclc.org>
To: petsa@us.ibm.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Ashok,

Thank you for your comments regarding the RDF Model and Syntax
specification. The following is a response to issues raised in your
attached message.

Issue 1. When inserting resources into a collection the "rdf:li" should
not
be required.

There are issues in permitting such an abbreviation that interfere
with our requirement that a schema need not be present to parse the
RDF/XML instance.  We will consider whether this can be accomodated in
a future version of RDF.

Issue 2. It should be possible to specify the collection type as an
attribute of the typed node.

The rdf:type= attribute can be used to specify this.

Issue 3. It should be possible to add typed nodes into a collection
using
the following example syntax:

This appears to be the same as comment 1, with the same issues about
correct interpretation of the data without the schema.

Sincerely,

Ralph Swick, W3C Metadata Activity Leader
Eric Miller, Bob Schloss, RDF Model and Syntax Chairs


> From: petsa@us.ibm.com
> To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Message-ID: <852566A6.004836E5.00@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:10:05 -0400
> Subject: Request for syntax simplification
>
> In our DCD proposal, http://www.w3c.org/TR/NOTE-dcd, we requested
three
> simplifications to the RDF syntax.
>
> 1. When inserting resources into a collection the "rdf:li" should not
be
> required.
>      John Cowan, in his note of Ocy 10, makes the same request.
> 2. It should be possible to specify the collection type as an
attribute of
> the typed node.
> 3. It should be possible to add typed nodes into a collection using
the
> following example syntax:
>     <Group rdf:order="Seq">
>           <Element>InterestRate</Element>
>           <Element>Amount</Element>
>           <Element>Maturity</Element>
>     </Group>
>
> The first two requests were explicitly mentioned in the proposal.  The

> third was conveyed to the RDF Syntax WG
> by Tim Bray.
>
> The Oct 8 draft does address 2. and the following is now legal:
> <Group rdf:type="http://www.w3.org/RDF/syntax#Seq">
>
> If XML 1.x  supports namespace prefices in values, this could be
simplified
> to:
>  <Group rdf:type="rdf:Seq">
>
> I am writing to reiterate our request for items 1 and 3.  In talking
about
> DCD with interested parties we received
> a great deal of pushback on the use of RDF.  One of the reasons always

> cited was the baroque syntax.
>
> Ashok Malhotra, IBM
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 1998 14:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:26 GMT